Here up north, you pretty much have to be at least upper middle class to play tennis year round. The court fees are $25 to $30 bucks per hour during the Winter. I imagine before the proliferation of public courts in this country, tennis was exclusive to the upper class. I think the fact that tennis is a non-contact sport that can be played at a leisurely pace appealed to the aristocracy. At least tennis is not as snobbish as golf. You won't get thrown out of a tennis club by wearing denim shorts a la Michael Jordan.

If you think badminton is a socialist-inspired opiate of the masses, then the DPRK-made kimchi has obviously rotted your brain.

My brain is not rotten. I was not referring to the origins of badminton.
I was referring to its increased popularity among working class peasants
in socialist countries. It is now a poor man's sport that anyone can play
pretty much anywhere. No net even required.

The modern game of tennis (lawn tennis) was started as a game for British aristocrats.

However, the old medieval form of tennis (the kind King Henry VIII played) was actually started by monks in French montasteries. It was then spread by students who studied with the monks and learned to play the game. For a while it actually was a street game played by the common people, who would gamble on the results. Some people think that the reason for the bizarre scoring system - 15, 30, 40 instead of 1,2,3 is that those were units of currency. In any event, because tennis was associated with gambling many countries passed laws forbidding the common people from playing it, so it became an aristocratic sport only.

I dont know anyone who plays badminton but I grew up on public tennis courts (free or cheap) and have known literally hundreds of players at all levels of the sport who did as well. And who continue to play on public courts (free or cheap). So the original question makes no sense to me. Golf is another story.

Tennis' history show that it was the sport of choice for kings and royalty.

Today, though, it still has that reputation. I think tennis appeals to a lot of people, and a lot try to play it. The sport is actually much more difficult than it looks and it generally isn't associate much with athletes so much as it is with intellects because, let's be honest, you have to be smart in order to play the sport well. It's a technical sport which means that because the motions aren't really natural for the body, it takes a lot of skill and practice to do well.

As for the "snobby" part, I learned to play at my city courts and don't play at clubs or anywhere else where I'm required to pay. I don't see the reason to as I have access to public courts. I learned tennis through my high school team (and we also practiced on the city courts) and met a lot of different kinds of players from all kinds of backgrounds. It is a more expensive sport to play, but it doesn't have to be. Court access can be free and balls aren't that expensive. Any kind of sports clothes will do and racquets can be as cheap as USD $30. Of course, as you get better and play more important matches, the expenses do come.

I dont know anyone who plays badminton but I grew up on public tennis courts (free or cheap) and have known literally hundreds of players at all levels of the sport who did as well. And who continue to play on public courts (free or cheap). So the original question makes no sense to me. Golf is another story.

Agreed. Also, I think the tennis is "too expensive" to play for the average person is overplayed. Everytime I drive by a public basketball court, I see guys playing in 100 dollar jordans and over-priced NBA jerseys. If you are just a beginner or recreational player, you don't have to spend 200 dollars on Babolats or vapors to enjoy tennis.

Of course, I'm not going to deny that tennis does become an expensive sport if you want to go pro or play at a high level. However, to say that only rich people can enjoy tennis is ridiculous.

Tennis' history show that it was the sport of choice for kings and royalty.

Today, though, it still has that reputation. I think tennis appeals to a lot of people, and a lot try to play it. The sport is actually much more difficult than it looks and it generally isn't associate much with athletes so much as it is with intellects because, let's be honest, you have to be smart in order to play the sport well. It's a technical sport which means that because the motions aren't really natural for the body, it takes a lot of skill and practice to do well.

As for the "snobby" part, I learned to play at my city courts and don't play at clubs or anywhere else where I'm required to pay. I don't see the reason to as I have access to public courts. I learned tennis through my high school team (and we also practiced on the city courts) and met a lot of different kinds of players from all kinds of backgrounds. It is a more expensive sport to play, but it doesn't have to be. Court access can be free and balls aren't that expensive. Any kind of sports clothes will do and racquets can be as cheap as USD $30. Of course, as you get better and play more important matches, the expenses do come.

Good comments although I've had the cramp beaten out of me by people with bad strokes. I guess they lacked the upper class snobbery to pay for real tennis training.

Perhaps the original poster should research the top players of the sport throughout history and determine for himself how many came from wealthy families.

It appears to me that this whole discussion is based on some sort of personal issue, not reality.

I dont know anyone who plays badminton but I grew up on public tennis courts (free or cheap) and have known literally hundreds of players at all levels of the sport who did as well. And who continue to play on public courts (free or cheap). So the original question makes no sense to me. Golf is another story.

Same for me. Tennis is a cheap sport in America.

The costs come if you want to be seriously competitive and have to travel around to places to play in tournaments. This wouldn't be the case if three times as many people played the sport!

There are plenty of sports out there. You want an expensive sport, go polo. I would hazard mountain climbing is expensive, too.

Earlier poster talking about British origins makes me wonder if the whole idea of "organized sport" really only began in the 19th c. AD.

__________________
To Praise, To Bless, To Preach--the Dominican Order

As noted earlier, Tennis is associated with snobby upper class people, but the fact that it's played by folks of several different levels of income and races debunks that.

If you want an exclusive, snobby, upper class sport, try Polo (as stated by Dedans), Equestrian (if you'd even consider it a sport), Lacrosse, or in some cases hockey, football, or any other sport that costs loads in equipment.

As noted earlier, Tennis is associated with snobby upper class people, but the fact that it's played by folks of several different levels of income and races debunks that.

If you want an exclusive, snobby, upper class sport, try Polo (as stated by Dedans), Equestrian (if you'd even consider it a sport), Lacrosse, or in some cases hockey, football, or any other sport that costs loads in equipment.

Equestrian is insanely expensive. My GF is a world level competitor, and the amount of time and money that goes into it is just ridiculous.

Why has tennis traditionally always been a snob sport for the upper class?
A related question would be why tennis is universally loved by all rich people.
I don't know of a single upper class wealthy snob who has never played
tennis before.
It was not until the arrival of public tennis courts, that ordinary working class
peasants were able to play this sport.
At least tennis is not a socialist working class sport like badminton
or handball, but I also do not like its exclusive nature and snob heritage.

Public golf courses can cost $35 for greens fees (not including carts, which can cost another $15).

Until public tennis courts start charging an equivalent amount of money, I will never regard tennis as a "snob sport".